V.D.Mathew vs John V.D.*

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided May 24, 2023

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1345188

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1345188
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas
Decided On: May 24, 2023
Case Number: Crl.Rev.Pet/2638/2003

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

V.D.Mathew

Respondent

John V.D.*

Excerpt

.....to be followed for compounding the offences and directed costs to be imposed at different rates for different levels at which the matter issettled. it was further observed in the aforesaid judgment that, imposition of costs is a matter of discretion by the competent court and the same can even be reduced, based upon specific facts and circumstances of the case. subsequently, in the decision in madhya pradesh state legal services authority v. prateek jain and another [2014 (10) scc 690], supreme court went on to observe that the court can, not only reduce the costs but can even waive the same.4. a perusal of the facts in the instant case, reveal that theaccused is alleged to have issued a cheque dated 12.10.1999 for an amount of rs.50,000/- in favour of the complainant which, on presentation was dishonoured. almost 24 years have elapsed since, the cheque was presented. the complainant expired and the matter has been settled with the legal heir of the said complainant. having regard to the long period that has elapsed, since the presentation of the cheque and taking note of the settlement arrived at between the parties, i am of the view that this is a fit case where the settlementarrived at between the parties can be acted upon and the costs suggested by the supreme court in damodar s. prabu (supra) can be entirely waived on.5. in view of the above, on the basis of settlement arrived atbetween the parties, as accepted by this court in the order in crl.m.a. no.1/2022, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner in c.c.no.877/1999 on the files of the judicial first class magistrate-i, kanjirappally as confirmed by judgment dated 08.08.2003 in crl.a.no.250/2001 on the files of the additional sessions court, kottayam, is hereby set aside and the revision petitioner is acquitted. criminal revision petition is allowed as above. sd/- bechu kurian thomas judge jka/24.05.23.

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945 CRL.REV.PET NO. 2638 OF 2003 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A.NO. 250/2001 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT,KOTTAYAM IN C.C.NO.877/1999 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I,KANJIRAPPALLY REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT: V.D.MATHEW AGE 65 S/O. DEVASIA, MAKAYIL HOUSE MATTAKKARA P.O, KOTTAYAM BY ADV SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ACCUSED & STATE: 1 JOHN V.D. (* EXPIRED) S/O DEVASIA, VADAKEDATHU, MATTAKKARA, KOTTAYAM 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ,ERNAKULAM 3 BABU SEBASTIAN S/O VD JOHN, VADAKKEDATHU HOUSE, MATTAKKARA P.O,

KOTTAYAM - 686564 (ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER

DATED 22/01/2020 IN CRL.M.A. 1/2020 IN CRL.R.P. BY ADV TOM E. JACOB OTHER PRESENT: Sri. C.N.PRABHAKARAN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

==================== ===================== Dated this the 24th day of May, 2023

ORDER

Revision petitioner was the accused in C.C.No.877/1999 on the

files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kanjirappally. He was found guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. In the appeal preferred as Crl.A.No.250/2001 before the Additional Sessions Court, Kottayam, the conviction was confirmed but the sentence was modified to simple imprisonment for one month and also to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed upon him, this revision petition has been preferred.

2. During the pendency of this revision petition, the complainant

who is arrayed as first respondent herein died and his legal heir was impleaded as additional 3rd respondent by order dated 22.01.2020. In the meantime, 3rd respondent and the revision petitioner is purported to have entered into a settlement. Consequent to the settlement, Crl.M.A.No.1/2022 was filed seeking to compound the offence based upon the said settlement.

3. In the decision in Damodar S. Prabu v. Sayed Babalal H.

[2010 (5) SCC 663], Supreme Court had issued guidelines to be followed for compounding the offences and directed costs to be imposed at different rates for different levels at which the matter is

settled. It was further observed in the aforesaid judgment that, imposition of costs is a matter of discretion by the competent court and the same can even be reduced, based upon specific facts and circumstances of the case. Subsequently, in the decision in Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority v. Prateek Jain and Another [2014 (10) SCC 690], Supreme Court went on to observe that the court can, not only reduce the costs but can even waive the same.

4. A perusal of the facts in the instant case, reveal that the

accused is alleged to have issued a cheque dated 12.10.1999 for an amount of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the complainant which, on presentation was dishonoured. Almost 24 years have elapsed since, the cheque was presented. The complainant expired and the matter has been settled with the legal heir of the said complainant. Having regard to the long period that has elapsed, since the presentation of the cheque and taking note of the settlement arrived at between the parties, I am of the view that this is a fit case where the settlement

arrived at between the parties can be acted upon and the costs suggested by the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabu (Supra) can be entirely waived on.

5. In view of the above, on the basis of settlement arrived at

between the parties, as accepted by this Court in the order in Crl.M.A. No.1/2022, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner in C.C.No.877/1999 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kanjirappally as confirmed by judgment dated 08.08.2003 in Crl.A.No.250/2001 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court, Kottayam, is hereby set aside and the revision petitioner is acquitted. Criminal revision petition is allowed as above. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE jka/24.05.23.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2023 Same Parties V.D.Mathew vs John V.D.* Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas